Space, the final frontier of discrepancies

I am no scientist, nor do I claim to have any bit a smarts in me wee-pea-brain. But, I can’t help but look at the following images and ask myself if NASA seems to have some continuity issues here. Observationally speaking, the images below don’t really match up.

I just can’t help but notice the dissimilarities here. Look at how much closer those rings seem to have gotten while also becoming more in tune with how they would act if gravitational attraction on a cosmic scale were an actual factor. What I mean by that is this… the photo on the left seems to suggest that the rings are somehow offset from the sphere, and as a result somehow defy the way that gravity is supposed to act in the vacuum of space.

Come to think of it, I have looked at Saturn a few times in my life through a telescope. And not once have I ever observed its rings in a geometrical formation around the sphere such as the 2016 NASA photo seems to suggest. No, instead I have always observed it to be much like what we see in the image on the left (offset; defying the centrifugal momentum gravity would place on the rings). Why is it that this inconsistency exists? Why is it that what NASA shows us regarding this celestial body does not match what we can actually observe on our own when looking through a telescope? Apparently, the more expensive your telescope, the more it effects where the rings are positioned in relation to Saturn as a sphere.

Seems logical…

But it doesn’t stop there. If you go back and look at any of the images from 1960 and compare them to today’s NASA images, there are a lot of things that don’t seem to line up. Don’t get me wrong, I understand that the “quality” of a photo changes the way that the image will appear. I understand how focus works. I’ve used a camera. That will however… not change the shape or features of the image to the degree that we see here.

Apparently, when you increase the resolution of an image the shape of that image and its features also change. I didn’t know that was how it worked. How ignorant of me. Speaking of shapes… the science people of today seem to suggest that the earth isn’t actually round at all. None of the planets are, apparently. Nope… they are oblate. And according to good ol’ Neil, the earth is pear shaped, because that makes sense.

If that is true, then why are all of the NASA images of any planet showing us something perfectly round? As you can see in the photo on the left of Jupiter, it doesn’t appear to be a perfect circle (which goes along with what scientists tell us about the shape of the earth and other heavenly bodies today). Why then are all of the photos of every planet including the earth perfectly spherical in shape today? They are either round or they aren’t. They can’t be both. Someone needs to get with Neil and Bill to clear all of that up.

Anyway, I feel like this rant has run its course. I just don’t feel that the drastic differences we see in the above images should exist over such a short amount of time. Something has got to give. Either the images from the 60’s were forged… or the images from today are forged. And since I can look through a telescope on my own and see roughly the same thing that was shown in the 60’s, I am inclined to agree with them. On the other hand, I can drop today’s NASA images into Photoshop and by changing the opacity to show where most NASA “photos” have been cropped, edited, or cloned in some way (making them no longer a photo, but a composite – which is a fancy way of saying, drawing). With that, I am more inclined to believe that the images provided to use today are the ones that are fake.

Having said that, here you go… rant actually over. Space is fake.

Someone explain these inconsistencies, please.

And if your attempt of an explanation is simply Googling one phrase, clicking the first video you find, and sending it to me… nice try, but no thanks. If you actually started looking closer at this stuff, you would be asking these types of questions, too.

Post navigation

2 thoughts on “Space, the final frontier of discrepancies”

Many images from Nasa’s website are artistic interpretations – Nasa does provide some images of Jupiter and Saturn where it’s quite evident that they are not perfect spheres.
This one from a Voyager Probe: https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/saturn/saturn.jpg (1977) does just that. Both Saturn and Jupiter are not perfect spheres, their gravity holds them down, but they spin so fast that they tend to seem a little squashed down and bulged at the middle. Earth does too, but our .3 percent makes our world seem very round compared to the other planets.

For starters, I am very aware of the fact that a lot of what NASA presents is just artist illustration. If you go back and look at some of my other NASA related posts, I touch on a few of their artist illustrators by name.

As for your 1977 image, why is the shot cropped onto a black background? When you change the opacity of the image it shows that the image has been cut and pasted over a black backdrop. Why would they do that if it’s an actual photograph?

Here is an example of the cropping I am talking about, done with a “photo” of earth.

HELLO THERE…

My name is Pat. I live in Austin, Texas. The Copernican Principle of Heliocentric Evolutionary Cosmology is nothing more than theoretical speculation at best.

LOOKING FOR SOMETHING?

Search for:

MEET THE CREW

Sarah is pretty passionate about everything. She has a serious kite collection and I like her even though she doesn’t care for my taste in music.Walter and Jake are inseparable. They are kind of a big deal, and they know it. They wish we went to the dog park more often than we do.Pugsley the cat is kind of a loner. But that doesn’t change the fact that he makes this crew complete. If he could talk, I think he would be hilariously sarcastic.

FREE MUSIC

I used to tour for a living as a singer-songwriter. You can DOWNLOAD my music for free these days.